Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Medio Ambiente
Medio Ambiente
Medio Ambiente
Edited by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany, and approved June 4, 2013 (received for review
January 31, 2013)
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1222463110
60
60
20
20
20
20
40
40
60
2
60
60
0
Yield change
40
20
20
20
20
40
60
0
60
60
0
60
Yield change
40
40
40
20
20
20
20
40
40
60
0
60
60
0
60
Yield change
60
40
40
20
20
20
20
IPCC AR4
GGCMs without explicit N stress
GGCMs with explicit N stress
40
40
60
0
60
0
Fig. 1. Mean relative yield change (%) from reference period (19802010)
compared to local mean temperature change (C) in 20 top food-producing
regions for each crop and latitudinal band. Results shown for the 7 GGCMs (6
for rice) for all GCM combinations of RCP8.5 compared to results from IPCC
AR4 (represented as orange dots and quadratic t; 36). Quadratic leastsquares ts are used to estimate the general response for the GGCMs with
explicit nitrogen stress (EPIC, GEPIC, pDSSAT, and PEGASUS; red line) and for
those without (GAEZ-IMAGE, LPJ-GUESS, and LPJmL; green line). The 15
85% range of all models for each C band is represented in gray. Limits of
local temperature changes reect differences in projected warming in current areas of cultivation.
Rosenzweig et al.
3.1 Model Types. The seven GGCMs may be grouped into three
types according to their original purpose, structure, and processes: site-based crop models (EPIC, GEPIC, and pDSSAT),
agro-ecosystem models (LPJ-GUESS, LPJmL, and PEGASUS),
and agro-ecological zone models (GAEZ-IMAGE) (SI Appendix, Fig. S1). A critical question is whether two models from the
same lineage, such as EPIC and GEPIC, and LPJ-GUESS and
LPJmL are truly independent. For instance, in the case of EPIC
and GEPIC, the same model version is used (0810), but with different parameterizations and assumptions about soil and management input data that are reected in the variations in their results.
Site-based models were developed to simulate processes at the
eld scale, and include dynamic interactions among crop, soil,
atmosphere, and management components (2, 20, 30). These
models are often calibrated and validated with data from agronomic eld experiments. The versions of the site-based models
used in this study have been developed to run simulations on
global grids, as has been done using DSSAT (29, 3537).
Agro-ecosystem models were primarily developed to simulate
carbon and nitrogen dynamics, surface energy balance, and soil
water balance. The LPJmL and LPJ-GUESS models are dynamic global vegetation models that simulate the full global
carbon and water cycles. Vegetation dynamics and agricultural
modules were originally introduced to improve the simulations of
these cycles. PEGASUS is a simple global vegetation model
designed to test how agroecosystems respond to climate change
and to evaluate potential benets of various farming adaptation
options at the global scale.
PNAS | March 4, 2014 | vol. 111 | no. 9 | 3269
AGRICULTURAL
SCIENCES
SUSTAINABILITY
SCIENCE
Yield change
SPECIAL FEATURE
The agro-ecological zone methodology (used here by GAEZIMAGE) was developed to assess agricultural resources and
potential at regional and global scales and has been embedded
into integrated assessment models for global environmental
change (6, 23).
3.2 Model Processes. Crop processes simulated in all or some of
the GGCMs include leaf area development, light interception
and utilization, yield formation, crop phenology, root distribution responsiveness to water availability at soil depth, water and
heat stress, soilcropatmosphere water cycle dynamics, evapotranspiration, soil carbon and nitrogen cycling, and the effect of
[CO2] (SI Appendix, Table S1). All of the GGCMs explicitly
simulate the effects of temperature and water on crop growth;
fewer models simulate, for example, the effects of specic heat
stress at critical stages of crop development or the effects of
water-logging on root function. GGCMs differ as to their simulation of some processes in individual crops, such as which
models simulate rice phenology as sensitive to day length as well
as temperature.
Thus the GGCMs vary in their interactive responses to increasing [CO2], rising temperature, and changes in water availability, which are the core characteristics of projected climate
changes in agricultural regions around the world (32). How the
GGCMs handle these factors and their interactions with nutrient
availability (especially N) has signicant impacts on the results (41).
This GGCM intercomparison focuses on long-term yield levels
affected by inputs (climate, [CO2], water, nutrients) rather than
on short-term shocks. The effects of pests and diseases are not
included explicitly; pest vulnerability may be implicitly included
through calibration to observed yields in some of the models.
LPJmL and PEGASUS, for instance, reect the level of farming
intensication and technological inputs (such as the use of
pesticides). However this method does not allow for estimation
of how the effects of pests and diseases may change under
changing climate conditions, an important area for future model
development.
Climate change inuences on short-term temperature extremes,
monsoon dynamics, and the frequency and intensity of precipitation may also play a substantial role in the nature of future
agricultural impacts. GCMs do not fully resolve these features,
and the representation of corresponding stresses remains an active
area of GGCM development.
3.3 Model Inputs. A key contrast among the GGCMs is in nutrient
response in regard to underlying soil properties and to nutrients
applied (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium), amount, and
timing. Disparities in the resulting nutrient stress may affect the
sensitivity of yields to climate change because climate stresses and
benets may also interact with (or be overwhelmed by) nutrient
stresses. Alternate approaches in the GGCMs fertilization and
nutrient schemes therefore need to be taken into account in
interpreting crop yield responses to [CO2] and other variables.
GGCM differences in the simulation of water availability and
the application of irrigation also have a direct effect on climate
sensitivity in irrigated regions. While the GGCMs deviate in how
water availability is determined, the effects of these deviations
were reduced by testing two irrigation scenarios: 1) no irrigation,
and 2) full irrigation (assuming water is available to fully irrigate
crops) (see SI Appendix). In GEPIC, full irrigation was set as a
complete elimination of water stress of crops. In other GGCMs,
full irrigation does not necessarily eliminate water stress completely, as irrigation events are triggered by model-specic soil
moisture thresholds (rainfed and irrigated production responses
are shown in Fig. S5). In some cases, the ability of the crop plant
to transpire water may not be sufcient to satisfy the atmospheric
demand (i.e., stomata may close despite full irrigation).
3.4 Model Procedures. An important disparity in GGCM outputs is
whether the models calculate actual or potential yields as the
primary output. The GAEZ-IMAGE and LPJ-GUESS results
3270 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1222463110
A EPIC
B LPJ-GUESS
C GEPIC
D LPJmL
E pDSSAT
F PEGASUS
G M3-Observations
H IMAGE
>10
Fig. 2. Average reference period (19802010) GGCM maize yield (AF, H),
rescaled to a common global average to make the spatial patterns more
apparent, and historical yield M3 observation set (G) (39). Note that because
some models are calibrated and others are not and because some models
simulate potential rather than actual yields, it is not advisable to compare
the absolute yields in the ensemble with observations.
Rosenzweig et al.
SPECIAL FEATURE
4.3 Sensitivity of Yield Response to CO2. Projections of global relative yield changes under RCP8.5 differ substantially among
GGCMs but also between simulations with and without CO2
effects for maize, wheat, rice, and soybean (Fig. 4). By the end of
the 21st century, most GGCMs show a range of approximately
10% yield change across the ve GCM scenarios when CO2
effects are included (GCMs cause nearly double that range for
PEGASUS and only half that range for GAEZ-IMAGE). Relative global average model response to climate is more similar
and much more negative across tropical and midlatitude bands
once CO2 effects are removed, indicating that crop model parameterization of CO2 effects remains a crucial area of research.
Relative yield changes with and without CO2 effects are much
closer in C4 maize than in the C3 crops.
Wheat
Rice
Soy
GGCMs with explicit N stress
Maize
Wheat
Maize
Wheat
Rice
Soy
Rice
Soy
%
<-50
>50
0
Fig. 3. Median yield changes (%) for RCP8.5 (20702099 in comparison to 19802010 baseline) with CO2 effects over all ve GCMs x seven GGCMs (6 GGCMs for rice)
for rainfed maize (35 ensemble members), wheat (35 ensemble members), rice (30 ensemble members), and soy (35 ensemble members). Hatching indicates areas
where more than 70% of the ensemble members agree on the directionality of the impact factor. Gray areas indicate historical areas with little to no yield capacity.
The bottom 8 panels show the corresponding yield change patterns over all ve GCMs x four GGCMs with nitrogen stress (20 ensemble members from EPIC, GEPIC,
pDSSAT, and PEGASUS; except for rice which has 15) (Left); and 3 GGCMs without nitrogen stress (15 ensemble members from GAEZ-IMAGE, LPJ-GUESS, and LPJmL).
Rosenzweig et al.
SUSTAINABILITY
SCIENCE
Maize
AGRICULTURAL
SCIENCES
All GGCMs
Fig. 4. Relative change (%) in RCP8.5 decadal mean production for each
GGCM (based on current agricultural lands and irrigation distribution) from
ensemble median for all GCM combinations with (solid) and without (dashed)
CO2 effects for maize, wheat, rice, and soy; bars show range of all GCM combinations with CO2 effects. GEPIC, GAEZ-IMAGE, and LPJ-GUESS only contributed one GCM without CO2 effects.
A
With CO2
effects
Maize
Wheat
Rice
Soy
Without
CO2 effects
Rosenzweig et al.
Critical sources of uncertainty for climate change impacts on agricultural productivity are identied and characterized, including contrasts in results arising
from a range of global crop models, global climate models, and RCPs (42). SI
Appendix provides a full description of materials and methods.
Simulations are driven using 20 climate scenarios from the Coupled Model
Intercomparison Project Phase 5 archive with ve GCMs and four RCPs, each
1. Brisson N, et al. (2003) An overview of the crop model STICS. Eur J Agron 18(3-4):
309332.
2. Jones JW, et al. (2011) Use of crop models for climate-agricultural decisions. Handbook of Climate Change and Agroecosystems. ICP Series on Climate Change Impacts,
Adaptation, and Mitigation, eds Hillel D, Rosenzweig C (Imperial College Press, London), Vol 1, pp 131157.
3. Keating BA, et al. (2003) An overview of APSIM, a model designed for farming systems simulation. Eur J Agron 18(3-4):267288.
4. van Ittersum MK, Donatelli M (2003) Modeling cropping systems: Science, software
and applications. Eur J Agron 16:309332.
5. Challinor AJ, Wheeler TR, Craufurd PQ, Slingo JM, Grimes DLF (2004) Design and optimization of a large-area process-based model for annual crops. Agr For Meteorol 124:99120.
6. Fischer G, Shah M, van Velthuizen H, Nachtergaele FO (2002) Global Agro-Ecological
Assessment for Agriculture in the 21st Century: Methodology and Results. (Research
Report RR-02-02). (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Laxenburg, Austria).
7. Schlenker W, Hanemann WM, Fisher AC (2006) The impact of global warming on U.S.
agriculture: An econometric analysis of optimal growing conditions. Rev Econ Stat
88(1):113125.
8. Lobell DB, Burke MB (2010) On the use of statistical models to predict crop yield responses to climate change. Agr For Meteorol 150(11):14431452.
9. White JW, Hoogenboom G, Kimball BA, Wall GW (2011) Methodologies for simulating impacts of climate change on crop production. Field Crops Res 124(3):357368.
10. Rtter RP, Carter TR, Olesen JE, Porter JR (2011) Crop-climate models need an overhaul. Nat Climate Change 1(4):175177.
11. Rosenzweig C, et al. (2013) The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP): Protocols and pilot studies. Agric For Meteorol 170:166182.
12. Warszawski L, et al. (2014) The Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project
(ISIMIP): Project framework. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:32283232.
13. Hempel S, Frieler K, Warszawski L, Shewe J, Piontek F (2013) A trend-preserving bias
correction the ISI-MIP approach. Earth Syst Dynam 4:219236.
14. Elliott J, et al. (2014) Constraints and potentials of future irrigation water availability
on global agricultural production under climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
111:32393244.
15. Piontek F, et al. (2014) Multisectoral climate impact hotspots in a warming world. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 111:32333238.
16. Nelson GC, et al. (2014) Climate change effects on agriculture: Economic responses to
biophysical shocks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:32743279.
17. Williams JR, et al. (1990) EPIC-Erosion/Productivity Impact Calculator. Technical Bulletin Number 1768 (US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service,
Springeld, VA).
18. Williams JR (1995) The EPIC. Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, Chapter 25,
ed Singh VP (Water Resources Publications, Littleton, CO), pp 9091000.
19. Gassman PW, et al. (2004) Historical development and applications of the EPIC and APEX
models. ASAE/CSAE meeting paper no. 042097. Available at www.card.iastate.edu.
20. Izaurralde RC, et al. (2006) Simulating soil C dynamics with EPIC: Model description
and testing against long-term data. Ecol Modell 192(3-4):362384.
21. Liu J, et al. (2007) GEPICmodeling wheat yield and crop water productivity with
high resolution on a global scale. Agr Syst 94(2):478493.
22. Leemans R, Solomon AM (1993) Modeling the potential change in yield and distribution of the earths crops under a warmed climate. Clim Res 3:7996.
23. Bouwman AF, Kram T, Klein T, Goldewijk K, eds (2006) Integrated Modelling of
Global Environmental Change. An Overview of IMAGE 2.4 (PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague).
24. Bondeau A, et al. (2007) Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global
terrestrial carbon balance. Glob Change Biol 13(3):679706.
25. Fader M, et al. (2010) Virtual water content of temperate cereals and maize: Present
and potential future patterns. J Hydrol (Amst) 384(3-4):218231.
26. Waha K, et al. (2012) Climate-driven simulation of global crop sowing dates. Glob Ecol
Biogeogr 21(2):247259.
27. Smith B, et al. (2001) Representation of vegetation dynamics in the modeling of
terrestrial ecosystems: Comparing two contrasting approaches within European climate space. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 10(6):621637.
28. Lindeskog M, et al. (2013) Implications of accounting for land use in simulations of ecosystem services and carbon cycling in Africa. Earth System Dynamics Discussions 4:235278.
29. Elliott J, Glotter M, Best N, Kelly D, Wilde M, Foster I (2013) The parallel system for
integrating impact models and sectors (pSIMS). Proceedings of the Conference on
Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment: Gateway to Discovery
(XSEDE 13), Association for Computing Machinery, 21:18.
30. Jones JW, et al. (2003) The DSSAT cropping system model. Eur J Agron 18(3-4):235265.
31. Deryng D, Sacks WJ, Barford CC, Ramankutty N (2011) Simulating the effects of climate and
agricultural management practices on global crop yield. Global Biogeochem Cycles 25(2).
32. Easterling WE, et al. (2007) Food, bre and forest products. Climate Change 2007:
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds
Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (Cambridge Univ
Press, Cambridge, UK) pp 273313.
33. Peng S, et al. (2004) Rice yields decline with higher night temperature from global
warming. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101(27):99719975.
34. Hateld JL, et al. (2011) Climate impacts on agriculture: Implications for crop production. Agron J 103(2):351370.
35. Nelson GC, et al. (2009) Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation (International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC).
36. Nelson GC, et al. (2010) Food Security, Farming, and Climate Change to 2050: Scenarios,
Results, Policy Options (International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC).
37. Jones PG, Thornton PK (2003) The potential impacts of climate change on maize
production in Africa and Latin America in 2055. Glob Environ Change 13(1):5159.
38. Lobell DB, Cassman KG, Field CB (2009) Crop yield gaps: Their importance, magnitudes, and causes. Annu Rev Env Resour 34:179204.
39. Monfreda C, Ramankutty N, Foley JA (2008) Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the
year 2000. Global Biogeochem Cycles 22(1):19.
40. Farquhar GD, Caemmerer S, Berry JA (1980) A biochemical model of photosynthetic
CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species. Planta 149:7890.
41. Kimball BA (2010) Lessons from FACE: CO2 Effects and Interactions with Water, Nitrogen, and Temperature. The Handbook of Climate Change and Agroecosystems,
eds Hillel D, Rosenzweig C (Imperial College Press, Singapore), pp 87107.
42. Moss RH, et al. (2010) The next generation of scenarios for climate change research
and assessment. Nature 463(7282):747756.
43. Iizumi T, et al. (2011) Probabilistic evaluation of climate change impacts on paddy rice
productivity in Japan. Clim Change 107:391415.
44. Mller C (2011) Harvesting from uncertainties. Nature Climate Change 1:253254.
45. Rosenzweig C, Parry ML (1994) Potential impact of climate change on world food
supply. Nature 367:133138.
46. USDA (2012) Feed outlook. Capehart, Allen, and Bond. A Report from the Economic
Research Service. December 13, 2012. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/
fds-feed-outlook. Accessed January 15, 2013.
Rosenzweig et al.
SPECIAL FEATURE
AGRICULTURAL
SCIENCES
SUSTAINABILITY
SCIENCE